Physicists and physics majors, was it worth it?

[symbolipoint]

If "very fortunate" means "hey, he lucked out", then I don't agree. Sure, luck always comes into play, but Dr. Courtney's recap indicates he made decisions that were well-thought-out, carefully considered, and deliberate.

Maybe. That would be for Dr.Courtney to tell us.

 

[symbolipoint]

... and finally explained later to us:↑from symbolipoint:

He was smarter; or just more talented than most, and made very fortunate decisions.

Dr. Courtney said:

None of the above. I worked harder during my undergraduate years than 99.9% of the other students I have ever met or known. I got good advice from my profs and I followed it.

 

[Rika]

None of the above. I worked harder during my undergraduate years than 99.9% of the other students I have ever met or known. I got good advice from my profs and I followed it.

@jasonRF see that? I'm not saying it's ok to be lazy but with other degrees you don't need to be on absolute top when it comes to hard work in order to succeed.

That's not a good excuse to not continue programming. There's something called PRACTICE.

Totally missed my point. I graduated from high school with some programming experience like C++ and I knew it was not my cup of tea (probably if I knew back then that programming is the only viable career path for physics majors I would never study it) . Yes - I was doing some programming when it was needed but I didn't enjoy it and couldn't imagine rest of my life as software developer so as you can guess - I didn't pursue it outside of my major. I probably studied physics because I was blinded by pop sci books and movies to begin with. However my degree didn't provided you with opportunity to learn programming if you wanted to anyway. I had only 2 MATLAB classes and it was just like "write program for a next week, see you later" - most of my peers felt discouraged afterwards to pursue programming on their own.

 

[Andy Resnick]

But do you believe education is worth 200k$ and carrying student's loan your whole life? In my country it's free, in other European countries it's either free or really cheap. If you invest a lot of money in your education I think it's ok to expect something in return - rare skills or networking opportunities - something that would be ground-breaking for your career. Otherwise in the age of Coursera - what's the point?

Anything is worth only what someone is willing to pay. The value of a particular educational experience to a particular person is subjective.

You can "invest" a lot of money in books- does that mean it's ok to expect that you master the contents?

 

[Vanadium 50]

You can "invest" a lot of money in books- does that mean it's ok to expect that you master the contents?

I just spent a ton of money on a cello. Why can't I play like Yo-Yo Ma?

 

[StatGuy2000]

I just spent a ton of money on a cello. Why can't I play like Yo-Yo Ma?

Vanadium 50, what exactly is the point are you trying to make here? That spending money on something is only meaningful if you practice on what you learn?

Well, duh!

The whole point of this thread is whether studying physics in university can lead to good outcomes aka lead to meaningful, well-paid employment upon graduation that is at least somewhat related to what one has studied. Frankly, you work as a physicist today, so a physics degree had value for you. But given that you're an older man, your views may not be that current.

 

[Dr Transport]

I will agree that a physics major needs to be a lot smarter about their careers than an electrical engineering major...

Exactly, as a physics major you can't expect to directly compete with an EE etc in a position that entails pure knowledge in that discipline. You have to be smart about the positions you apply for, look at the majors/degrees they are looking at, if the position is looking for an electrical engineer and that is the only degree they are looking for. I remember vividly the position I took after graduate school, it was looking for someone who understood electromagnetics and the degree required was any ABET engineering degree, math, physics or computer science. The kicker was that they wanted someone who had worked with unix and who wasn't afraid to learn about design work. I have spent the past almost 20 years working in an area where there are prevalently 6 degrees, mechanical, electrical, physics, math, computer engineering and optics.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Vanadium 50, what exactly is the point are you trying to make here? That spending money on something is only meaningful if you practice on what you learn?

Well, duh!

My dad emphasized the importance of education, but he was always careful to put his greatest emphasis on the importance of hard work. As I've matured and past the age of 50, I often summarized my dad's insight with the proverb "All hard work brings a profit" when students express concerns regarding which STEM path might yield a more profitable outcome than another. Many more STEM majors are underemployed after graduation due to their work ethic in college (drinking, partying, gaming, otherwise wasting time) than due to their choice of majors (engineering vs physics, etc.)

@jasonRF see that? I'm not saying it's ok to be lazy but with other degrees you don't need to be on absolute top when it comes to hard work in order to succeed.

My need to work so hard in college was more related to my laziness in high school rather than majoring in physics instead of engineering. I did less than 10 hours of work (total) at home in 4 years of high school, only had 3 years of high school math, and managed to get to college Calculus without really knowing what a function was. It is very hard to succeed in any STEM major when one is still struggling with algebra.

With the weak foundation from a poor work ethic and a Louisiana public school that let met get away with it, a successful career in Mech E or EE would have required the same level of effort, maybe more. What I accomplished in college was the academic equivalent of going from a 300 lb slob to a competitive NCAA athlete. That's going to be hard regardless of whether one is a gymnast, tennis player, or sprinter.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Vanadium 50, what exactly is the point are you trying to make here?

The point is that spending $200,000 on a degree does not guarantee you a job, just like spending a million on a cello does not guarantee you anything either.

But given that you're an older man, your views may not be that current.

They aren't. I got my PhD in just about the worst possible time employment-wise. AT&T had broken up a decade earlier and Bell Labs and Bellcore were shedding physicists as fast as they could (and universities were gobbling up the best of them). The SSC was just about to be cancelled. SDI was ending. Aerospace and defense were contracting - the "peace dividend". The unemployment rate was close to 8%, which didn't happen before since the Great Depression and wouldn't happen again until 2008.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

A musician named Keith Green had a quote, "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to McDonald's makes you a hamburger."

Perhaps we need a corollary:

Going to college (and majoring in physics) doesn't make you a physicist and more than buying a cello makes you a musician. There is an internal transition that has to happen that is the responsibility of the student.

In music and sports, it is painfully obvious when the money has not accomplished the goal. In physics and engineering, the lack of the internal transition is harder to see, but employers usually see it within the first year of employment.

 

[Locrian]

Some general observations from this thread as to whether a degree in physics is "worth it"...

1. There are varying opinions on the matter. For some people it has worked out very well. Others have not found their experience to be particularly useful in the long term, particularly in terms of finding employment, and therefore feel as though pursuing a professional or less academically-oriented degree may have been a better option.
2. Factors that affect this diversity in experience seem to include:
   - the overall quality of the physics program
   - the structure of the physics program and the extent to which marketable skills are developed within it
   - the quality of the instructors
   - the "entrepreneurial" nature of the individual student
   - the student's expectations going in

For a student considering a physics degree, it is therefore important to consider these factors when selecting a program.

This is a really good post, and I agree.

One conclusion from this: reducing student's expectations would be a solid way to improve their experience. I'm on board with this; let's see if we can get some university websites to assist.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The point is that spending $200,000 on a degree does not guarantee you a job, just like spending a million on a cello does not guarantee you anything either.

Then the obvious corollary is the following: what good is spending $200,000 on a university degree out of one's own pocket (or getting into debt to do so)?

(BTW, this is an argument for reducing the burden of post-secondary education on students through increased funding to post-secondary education and easing the meteoric rise in tuition)

They aren't. I got my PhD in just about the worst possible time employment-wise. AT&T had broken up a decade earlier and Bell Labs and Bellcore were shedding physicists as fast as they could (and universities were gobbling up the best of them). The SSC was just about to be cancelled. SDI was ending. Aerospace and defense were contracting - the "peace dividend". The unemployment rate was close to 8%, which didn't happen before since the Great Depression and wouldn't happen again until 2008.

But you had also completed your undergraduate education (I presume in the US, although the situation is similar in a number of countries like Canada and the UK) at a time when college/university was more affordable, and students weren't burdened with the massive debt loads that current graduates face. So even though employment-wise you faced a tough period (the late 80s and early 90s I presume), at least I presume you weren't in so much debt!

 

[Vanadium 50]

what good is spending $200,000 on a university degree out of one's own pocket (or getting into debt to do so)?

That is a very good question. I would go a step further - I wouldn't spend $200,000 on anything whatsoever without understanding what good it is or whether I could achieve those goals some less expensive way.

at least I presume you weren't in so much debt!

I graduated with (inflation-adjusted) 9% less debt than today's average student from the same college. But then student loan rates were more like 10% than 4% today.

 

[Rika]

You can "invest" a lot of money in books- does that mean it's ok to expect that you master the contents?

I just spent a ton of money on a cello. Why can't I play like Yo-Yo Ma?

It's all true however not every book has good content that is worth mastering. If you spend money on a cello lessons, work hard and there is no progress then there is huge chance that lessons are not taught very well. There are classes that are taught badly or content is useless and you "work hard" because it's very time-consuming but in reality you don't learn anything useful. You can't blame students for everything.

I believe I didn't succeed with physics degree not because I was lazy (because I wasn't) but because it wasn't degree suitable for my needs and what I wanted to do.

My dad emphasized the importance of education, but he was always careful to put his greatest emphasis on the importance of hard work. As I've matured and past the age of 50, I often summarized my dad's insight with the proverb "All hard work brings a profit" when students express concerns regarding which STEM path might yield a more profitable outcome than another. Many more STEM majors are underemployed after graduation due to their work ethic in college (drinking, partying, gaming, otherwise wasting time) than due to their choice of majors (engineering vs physics, etc.)

True but I think it's not only important to work hard but also work smart. I really don't believe that I've put that much more effort in my 2nd school comparing to my physics degree but I was simply smarter about it. I've worked hard (probably harder than most of my peers) in order to do what I wanted to and there was no compromises when it comes to my career so it's not like I've set my bar lower. But I was very effective about it, I didn't waste my time for useless stuff. Doing barely minimum in useless classes, picking the best education available out there, even commuting half a day if it was needed. There is no value to hard work if you are not smart about it.

In this thread we all talk about getting additional education/classes outside of physics curriculum in order to become more marketable. It's proof that education/knowledge that comes solely from physics classes is not enough, not valuable as much as engineering or CS on job market. And that is something that is worth considering when choosing major.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

In this thread we all talk about getting additional education/classes outside of physics curriculum in order to become more marketable. It's proof that education/knowledge that comes solely from physics classes is not enough, not valuable as much as engineering or CS on job market. And that is something that is worth considering when choosing major.

You reek of confirmation bias. Most of the valuable things I mentioned above were within the context of physics curricula - courses and programs required for degree credit. Yes, students can pass the classes without all these things, but the opportunity came within the context of required courses.

So what you cite of proof _AGAINST_ is actually supporting evidence.

 

[symbolipoint]

Rika said:

In this thread we all talk about getting additional education/classes outside of physics curriculum in order to become more marketable. It's proof that education/knowledge that comes solely from physics classes is not enough, not valuable as much as engineering or CS on job market. And that is something that is worth considering when choosing major.

You reek of confirmation bias. Most of the valuable things I mentioned above were within the context of physics curricula - courses and programs required for degree credit. Yes, students can pass the classes without all these things, but the opportunity came within the context of required courses.

So what you cite of proof _AGAINST_ is actually supporting evidence.

This is what justifies to have good counseling and advising for those particular physics students who may make poorer choices in their education otherwise.
Also Rika, knowing what you want to do, very specific jobs, once you graduate, can help a student on what choices to make to include in his/her set of courses.

 

[vela]

I think we should recognize that the typical physics curriculum in the US has room for improvement. The APS and AAPT formed a joint task force to look at this issue, and in its report, the task force wrote:

Both graduates and their employers report that physics graduates could be better prepared for positions available to those with physics training. This is equally true for recipients of Ph.D. degrees in physics, almost half of whom occupy positions outside academia one year after receiving their degrees, and more of whom move to private-sector or government positions after completing a postdoc.​

and

It is worth restating that 95% of undergraduate physics students will not become physics professors. As a profession we cannot afford to ignore the needs of 95% of our undergraduate students, if we expect an education in physics to remain relevant in the 21st century. While there will always be a cohort of students who are drawn to physics purely because of its intellectual attractions and its roots in basic research, physics departments cannot in good conscience neglect their responsibility to provide the best possible preparation for all students.​

You can download the report from here: http://www.compadre.org/jtupp/

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think we should recognize that the typical physics curriculum in the US has room for improvement. The APS and AAPT formed a joint task force to look at this issue, and in its report, the task force wrote:

Both graduates and their employers report that physics graduates could be better prepared for positions available to those with physics training. This is equally true for recipients of Ph.D. degrees in physics, almost half of whom occupy positions outside academia one year after receiving their degrees, and more of whom move to private-sector or government positions after completing a postdoc.​

and

It is worth restating that 95% of undergraduate physics students will not become physics professors. As a profession we cannot afford to ignore the needs of 95% of our undergraduate students, if we expect an education in physics to remain relevant in the 21st century. While there will always be a cohort of students who are drawn to physics purely because of its intellectual attractions and its roots in basic research, physics departments cannot in good conscience neglect their responsibility to provide the best possible preparation for all students.​

You can download the report from here: http://www.compadre.org/jtupp/

A case can always be made that material needs to be added to the curriculum for physics graduates to be more employable. But no one ever says what should be taken out. Pressures to lower the bar for graduation have more and more programs requiring closer to 120 credit hours for graduation, and once the bar has been lowered, there are university level barriers to increasing the credit hours required for graduation.

When I earned by BS in Physics (LSU, 1989), 131 semester hours total were required, and I accrued over 100 semester hours in STEM courses. The Air Force Academy still requires 131 credit hours, including nearly that many STEM credit hours and 7 engineering courses of all majors, including physics majors. When you hire all of your graduates, you do a pretty good job preparing them. Their physics majors are very well prepared for many engineering type jobs in the Air Force AND for graduate school.

But the pressures to maintain retention and graduation rates high at most universities will likely not allow most physics departments to raise the bar on required STEM courses anywhere near where the Air Force Academy is now or what I accomplished at LSU. As long as this is true, improving preparation for engineering type jobs will probably mean lowering preparation for graduate school. Since the universities themselves will not allow increases in credit hour requirements, it's up to the students to take ownership of their own preparation and avail themselves of the existing opportunities within their physics courses, taking classes that are not required, diligently seeking employment in the physics department that will increase their preparation, and otherwise preparing themselves for whichever job sector they see as most likely following graduation.

The other issue with increased "employability" focus is that one invariably needs to choose between moving more toward engineering skills or more toward teaching skills. Since the total credit hours are effectively capped and outside departmental control, there is a tension between three possibilities: more teaching focus, more engineering skills, or better preparation for grad school. I prefer the free market approach of letting each department decide how they balance those factors, and letting each student find a path within each department by taking ownership of their college process.

 

[radium]

Sometimes there are different concentrations available in the physics major which influences the upper level electives you take.

I would also say that despite not having some of these more applied courses, from what I have heard the skills are not too difficult to pick up for physicists if they devote some time to learning things like how to code etc. After they have acquired these skills they may have advantages over engineers in some areas given the more extensive math knowledge emphasized in the physics major.

 

[FallenApple]

I know a few people that have completed physics at the phd level. One of them became a software engineer with a good salary and another works on Wall Street. Don't know if they picked those up as an after thought and that the study of physics just made them ready for anything or that the specifics of their program were directly transferable. Probably the latter.

You want to pick up some skills in technology such computing regardless of your choice of major. So if there are computational physics classes, you might find it transferable. For example, MCMC algorithnms and other probabilistic sampling techniques was originally developed for physics applications and you might see them in courses that teach computational statistical physics. These turned out to have important applications in machine learning, artificial intelligence and even finance and are simply great exercises in coding. Another thing that might be useful is learning how to write good reports. So courses that are project based allow you to accumulate a portfolio to present to prospective employers during interviews. In short, if you are to do physics, just make sure that you pick up technical skills BEFORE graduating.

 

[Andy Resnick]

It's all true however not every book has good content that is worth mastering. If you spend money on a cello lessons, work hard and there is no progress then there is huge chance that lessons are not taught very well. There are classes that are taught badly or content is useless and you "work hard" because it's very time-consuming but in reality you don't learn anything useful. You can't blame students for everything.

I believe I didn't succeed with physics degree not because I was lazy (because I wasn't) but because it wasn't degree suitable for my needs and what I wanted to do.

Of course I don't blame students for everything, neither do I hold all teachers blameless. I was simply pointing out the fallacy of a transactional view of learning, and note that you (originally) left out the above qualifiers.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I think we should recognize that the typical physics curriculum in the US has room for improvement.

I certainly agree that the curriculum has room for improvement. The point of debate is usually (at least for us) how to accommodate the myriad of potential 'next steps' for an undergraduate. Focusing on making a student 'job-ready' means we would have to first know what technical skills various employers are looking for now, but also predict several years into the future what the needs will be. And since employers are not actively communicating with us about their needs, we have to spend a lot of (uncompensated) time and effort tracking them down. Engineers don't graduate with a generic engineering degree, they obtain degrees in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, etc. A physics degree is the liberal-arts version of a science degree.

Also, there are very few electives in any science degree and making changes to existing courses can be a multi-year approval process. This is another barrier to making the degree flexible. It's unclear how we can offer a subset of students courses to prepare them for graduate school while at the same time providing a good foundation for the student who is hired for IT in a hospital, another student who is hired for R&D at a steel mill, another student who is hired for technical sales at a motor manufacturing plant, etc. etc.

One approach is to include internships (or similar work-study experiences) as a degree requirement. This can work well but requires a lot of time, effort, and support to implement and oversee.

 

[russ_watters]

I think we should recognize that the typical physics curriculum in the US has room for improvement. The APS and AAPT formed a joint task force to look at this issue, and in its report, the task force wrote:

Both graduates and their employers report that physics graduates could be better prepared for positions available to those with physics training. This is equally true for recipients of Ph.D. degrees in physics, almost half of whom occupy positions outside academia one year after receiving their degrees, and more of whom move to private-sector or government positions after completing a postdoc.​

and

It is worth restating that 95% of undergraduate physics students will not become physics professors. As a profession we cannot afford to ignore the needs of 95% of our undergraduate students, if we expect an education in physics to remain relevant in the 21st century. While there will always be a cohort of students who are drawn to physics purely because of its intellectual attractions and its roots in basic research, physics departments cannot in good conscience neglect their responsibility to provide the best possible preparation for all students.​

You can download the report from here: http://www.compadre.org/jtupp/

I've perceived before what I would call an "expectations gap" with physics majors. As a BS in mechanical engineering, I expected and got a job with the title "mechanical engineer". I expect the majority of my classmates did too. Expectations matched reality.

Art history is one of the lower degree-matching-job majors out there. But what do people expect? I sure hope that your typical art history major is not expecting to get a job with the word "art" in the title. Same for English and history (and an awful lot of the humanities). If they don't expect to, maybe that's ok? Do they come away from school angry that their art curriculum didn't include classes in coffee making and answering phones?

If there is an expectations gap, that's a bad thing. But it doesn't necessarily mean it's the reality that's wrong. Indeed, I think it is more the expectation that is unreasonble. Personally, I would rather see college freshment of all types be educated on proper expectations than changing the majors to accommodate unrealistic expectations. I don't think replacing physics courses with economics courses would really be doing physics majors any favors. Similarly, I don't think changing the game just to get more fans in the seats is doing baseball any favors in the long run.

 

[Rika]

This is what justifies to have good counseling and advising for those particular physics students who may make poorer choices in their education otherwise.
Also Rika, knowing what you want to do, very specific jobs, once you graduate, can help a student on what choices to make to include in his/her set of courses.

I think most students make huge mistake thinking "what should I study in university" instead of "what I want to do in future as my career". University lasts only for 3-6 years while you work for almost rest for your life and while you can change your career mid-way it's still easier to start with solid education. Even if student don't know specific job he/she should at least know if:

- wants to work with clients/patients, interact with people or not
- wants to specialize in very narrow field or be exposed to different stuff during their work
- wants to have stationary job or to travel
- wants to work in shifts/overnight or not

If he/she decide to choose STEM at least can consider if:

- likes to code or not
- likes to do "hands on" stuff
- likes to play with equipment/do instrumentation stuff
- likes to play with data
- likes to design physical objects
- likes to do field work
- wants to work in management/sales
- has more "empirical" attitude or not

Answering those questions can be really helpful.

 

[Rika]

I've perceived before what I would call an "expectations gap" with physics majors. As a BS in mechanical engineering, I expected and got a job with the title "mechanical engineer". I expect the majority of my classmates did too. Expectations matched reality.

*claps*

Art history is one of the lower degree-matching-job majors out there. But what do people expect? I sure hope that your typical art history major is not expecting to get a job with the word "art" in the title. Same for English and history (and an awful lot of the humanities). If they don't expect to, maybe that's ok? Do they come away from school angry that their art curriculum didn't include classes in coffee making and answering phones?

Dude, those words are pure gold.

Nobody in my painting major expected to get a job as a gallery painter (rather than that they wanted to get stable job as art school instructor). Most of my class was focused on graphic design, I treated this major as "foundation course"/ free atelier for illustrator job. But most of my physics class (myself included) believed that we will get an engineering job strongly connected with physics or high-paying corpo-job.

If there is an expectations gap, that's a bad thing. But it doesn't necessarily mean it's the reality that's wrong. Indeed, I think it is more the expectation that is unreasonble. Personally, I would rather see college freshment of all types be educated on proper expectations than changing the majors to accommodate unrealistic expectations. I don't think replacing physics courses with economics courses would really be doing physics majors any favors. Similarly, I don't think changing the game just to get more fans in the seats is doing baseball any favors in the long run.

Unfortunately you could see yourself on this thread - it's impossible. Many people (mostly those whose expectations for many reasons actually matched reality) were saying all that crap that me and my peers have heard when we were high school graduates - "physics teaches you how to THINK", "if you study physics you are so ****ing smart and have so flexible mind that you can do ANYTHING and employers will love you". It's not like me and my class had unrealistic expectations out of nowhere. And nobody want to say the truth because that means physics major will be even less popular that it already is.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I've perceived before what I would call an "expectations gap" with physics majors. As a BS in mechanical engineering, I expected and got a job with the title "mechanical engineer". I expect the majority of my classmates did too. Expectations matched reality.

Art history is one of the lower degree-matching-job majors out there. But what do people expect? I sure hope that your typical art history major is not expecting to get a job with the word "art" in the title. Same for English and history (and an awful lot of the humanities). If they don't expect to, maybe that's ok? Do they come away from school angry that their art curriculum didn't include classes in coffee making and answering phones?

If there is an expectations gap, that's a bad thing. But it doesn't necessarily mean it's the reality that's wrong. Indeed, I think it is more the expectation that is unreasonble. Personally, I would rather see college freshment of all types be educated on proper expectations than changing the majors to accommodate unrealistic expectations. I don't think replacing physics courses with economics courses would really be doing physics majors any favors. Similarly, I don't think changing the game just to get more fans in the seats is doing baseball any favors in the long run.

@russ_watters, the difference between an engineering degree such as yours versus science or humanities degrees is that an engineering degree is, by its very nature, a vocational degree -- a degree program specifically designed to train its students in a specific profession. In this respect, engineering shares commonalities with other professional educational programs like medicine, nursing, law, accounting, etc., or even the skilled trades (e.g. plumbers, electricians, mechanics, tool-and-dye makers, etc.) So inherently it is much easier for such professional programs to match the expectations of its students.

I believe the issue here is that most other degree programs (in both the sciences and the humanities) are not like this. So students who pursue such fields don't always have a clear idea of just where their education can lead them career-wise. So it is especially important for such students to have a clearer idea of where they want their career path to take them and develop those key skills as an addition to their main education.

However, that does not mean that these other science or humanities programs are worthless or don't have value -- it just means that students need to be aware and be pro-active in gaining those employable skills. Further, I disagree with your implication that the only value that a humanities program (like art history, as per your example) will only qualify its graduates in low-skill work such as coffee serving (we've discussed this at length about this in another thread, so I won't repeat myself here).

(Aside: I had intended not to respond any further to this thread, but felt the discussion had moved forward in a direction in which I feel I could contribute in a meaningful manner)

 

[CrysPhys]

Engineers don't graduate with a generic engineering degree, they obtain degrees in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, etc. A physics degree is the liberal-arts version of a science degree.

(1) There are schools that offer a "general engineering" major and other broad-based, multi-disciplinary engineering degrees. (2) Physics is not a generic science degree by any means. E.g., you're overlooking at least the major branches of chemistry (and chemical sciences) and biology (and life sciences).

 

[Dr Transport]

The expectation gap is a direct consequence of the media spouting off about what I'll call "sexy science", i.e. the LHC, Higgs etc...90%+ of the practicing physicists in the wold are not doing that but what I'll call the mundane parts of physics. We see no press corps beating down our doors to write about the stuff we do that actually affects what happens in a normal persons life on a daily basis. I believe that the Division of Condensed Matter at the APS is the largest division but we got no press, most of it goes to HEP and other esoteric branches.

All the student see while growing up and deciding to go into physics is the "sexy stuff" and not the run of the mill work that is done every day.

 

[vela]

A case can always be made that material needs to be added to the curriculum for physics graduates to be more employable. But no one ever says what should be taken out.

Personally, I would rather see college freshmen of all types be educated on proper expectations than changing the majors to accommodate unrealistic expectations. I don't think replacing physics courses with economics courses would really be doing physics majors any favors.

The idea isn't to take water down physics education but to, for example, restructure courses so that more emphasis can be placed on skills, like problem solving using computers, that the majority of physics students will eventually need anyway, instead of expecting them to "just pick it up" along the way.

 

[Nidum]

You need two different degree subjects - Pure Physics and Applied Physics .

 

[Andy Resnick]

(1) There are schools that offer a "general engineering" major and other broad-based, multi-disciplinary engineering degrees. (2) Physics is not a generic science degree by any means. E.g., you're overlooking at least the major branches of chemistry (and chemical sciences) and biology (and life sciences).

When a Physics major is primarily 'advertised' as "The math and problem-solving skills they pick up are great for the job market. Physics majors teach, work on Wall Street, and serve in the military. They also perform well on the admission tests for law and medical schools." or "One possibly appealing aspect of studying physics is the diversity of physics careers, which are not set in anyone direction. Physics graduates have skills that are in high demand in diverse sectors. These include skills relating to numeracy, problem-solving, data analysis and the communication of complex ideas, as well as a wider understanding of how the world works, on a scientific and human level.", that indicates to me that a Physics major isn't expected to become an expert in anything, but rather a jack-of-all trades.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

When a Physics major is primarily 'advertised' as "The math and problem-solving skills they pick up are great for the job market. Physics majors teach, work on Wall Street, and serve in the military. They also perform well on the admission tests for law and medical schools." or "One possibly appealing aspect of studying physics is the diversity of physics careers, which are not set in anyone direction. Physics graduates have skills that are in high demand in diverse sectors. These include skills relating to numeracy, problem-solving, data analysis and the communication of complex ideas, as well as a wider understanding of how the world works, on a scientific and human level.", that indicates to me that a Physics major isn't expected to become an expert in anything, but rather a jack-of-all trades.

I respectfully disagree. Strongly. If the department did their job, and the graduate availed themselves of the opportunity, the physics major is an expert in physics. The advertising language is just trying to explain that to an audience who does not really understand what physics is or why a physics major is valuable.

Breaking down what it means to be an expert in physics:

1. An expert in the scientific method, especially in quantitative areas.

This may be contrasted to other areas of science (biology, medicine, geology) which often tend to be more qualitative. This may also be contrasted with engineering which tends to be quantitatively strong, but scientifically weak. By that I mean, engineers tend to be strong enough at telling you what the equations mean, but tend to be weaker at questioning whether the equations are really true (and what the resulting uncertainty might be). If you want someone to design experiments to tell you how good the equations really are, you want a physicist. Engineers tend to believe equations based on authority (in a book or published paper) rather than demanding to see and understand the underlying data and the limitations on applicability.

2. An expert in quantitative problem solving.

A well trained physics major will be seeking to apply and solve at least one quantitative model. They often will try and apply multiple quantitative models that each apply for certain assumptions. They will consider limiting behaviors as well as how the solutions to different models compare with each other. They understand that the "true" answer of a complex problem is likely somewhere in the midst of the predictions of several simplified models.

3. An expert in skepticism and doubt.

The history of physics has many examples of long-established quantitative models eventually being found to be flawed. They tend to be waiting for "the other shoe to drop" as additional experimental evidence becomes available. On most teams (when teamed with engineers or scientists from other disciplines), the physics major will be most likely to be able to articulate concerns about why the consensus view may not be exactly right or as broadly applicable as hoped. The physicist may be first to come up with an "order of magnitude" estimate, but they'll also likely be the last to underestimate the error bars.

4. An expert in analogies

Feynman said, "The same equations have the same solutions." The physicist is the most likely to find a paradigm for a new problem similar to one they already know pretty well. And a good physics education provides a broad base of quantitative paradigms from which to draw. So the physicist can't just solve the equation once it gets picked, they likely have the broadest experience base to choose good candidates from which to try.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Breaking down what it means to be an expert in physics:

1. An expert in the scientific method, especially in quantitative areas.
2. An expert in quantitative problem solving.
3. An expert in skepticism and doubt.
4. An expert in analogies

None of that list is specific to Physics. That list isn't even specific to science majors. More broadly, I'm not sure what it means to be an 'expert in Physics'. Physics is too broad for that.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

None of that list is specific to Physics. That list isn't even specific to science majors. More broadly, I'm not sure what it means to be an 'expert in Physics'. Physics is too broad for that.

Other than physicists and physical chemists, I've met very few people who meet the all four criteria. So if I wanted to hire someone meeting all four criteria, physics graduates would be on the top of my list to interview.

 

[Andy Resnick]

So if I wanted to hire someone meeting all four criteria, physics graduates would be on the top of my list to interview.

But that's my point- I have *never* seen a job advertisement that mentions any of those, let alone all 4. Lastly, I know lots of people who meet all 4 of those criteria- economists, doctors, engineers, teachers, technicians, the list is nearly endless.